Justin Bacle

just FYI, On the Panasonic AF100, you can set the EVF in B&W for easier focusing, but you can also set the recording mode to B&W. This allows for better compression of the images as the full 24 MBps are used for the Luma encoding only (i.e. the data not used for chroma can be used for additional information on luma channels). So I think it may be good in that case to record directly in B&W, but you have to get the look right in camera (which is always a good way to work IMO)

I'll be honest, I have no idea about the price of this gem. But as I am gathering information about cheap and/or easy to use anamorphics. I would love to see how much is that worth. (Just gathering information right now, I'll start buying anamorphics next autumn)

Man, i was reading the thread and thinking "how can no one reccomend the Helios 44-2 ?" How do you get more "organic" than that ? :D

I love the overcranck on my AF100, but it's mainly because you get 60 fps overcrancked to 24 fps directly in camera, which is awesome as you don't have fiddle with speed in post. Other than that I remember that the GH3 60fps is decent too I think it is more a matter of codec than anything else. (when shooting an intraframe codec, it is wiser to shoot at lower framerates for better individual frames quality)

In France, the bare legal minimum is with the "intermittent status" which appriximates to ~$200/day (then the states comes and takes a third of it, thank you France...). Usually with indie filmmakers, you just pay for the expenses related to the job (sleeping, eating, and so). Not really legal, but with 0€ productions ... we have to :o

I only have the 58/1.4 MC to compare it with. But it is not a good copy. However, IMO, the MD versions have better contrast, smoother focus rings and have nicer flares (less loss of contrast). But I heard that good copies of MC lenses can be quite good too, but they have more dispersion in terms of quality (We're speaking of minoltas though :D no dispersion like russian lenses :P)

I'm pretty sure you won't loose a contract because of not complying to 4K. If it looks good in 1080p, upscale it in post to 4K if the client requires it. If it looks good in 1080p, it'll still look good on any screen

If I had to choose one lens, I would keep my Minolta MD 50/1.4. Small lens but a very good one (Can I keep my lensturbo ?) But if I had to work with that lens (i.e. producing stuff), I would keep my panasonic 14-140 mm. It is just very convenient and good enough in any situation (except low light). Very good lens choices here, I'm definitively going to check this Mir-24m

I paid 1300 € for the AF100 (which is an AF105 actually, but no difference), the 7-14/4 Panasonic, the 14-140/3,5-5,6 IS and a 32Gb SD card. Which is a fair price I guess compared to what can be found here in France (usually, the AF100 goes for more than 1000€ without any lenses)

Hi everyone As I have a bunch of lenses (most of them are in Minolta MD mount), I am preparing a few lens tests. Would be a good experience for me I think as I watch a lot of reviewers/filmmakers videos. The non exhaustive list of the old lenses I have available to test are : Minolta 28/3.5 (MD) -> Quick Test done Tokina 28/2.8 (MD) -> Quick Test done Super Varexon 28/3.5 (M42) -> Quick Test done Minolta 35/2.8 (MD) unknown 35/2.8 (M42) Minolta 45/2 "Pancake" (MD) Jupiter 8 50/2 (M39) Minolta 50/1.7 (MD) Minolta 50/1.4 (MD) Minolta 58/1.4 (MD) Helios 44-M 58/2 (M42) Helios 44-2 58/2 (M42) Minolta 85/1.7 (MD) Minolta 135/2.8 (MD) Praktica 135/2.8 (M42) Minolta 200/4.5 (MD) Tokina 400/5.6 (MD) Makinon 500/8 Reflex (MD) These are the lenses I can test right now, with and without a speedbooster (I have a Mitakon Lens Turbo II MD to m4/3) as I can adapt M42 to MD without any problems. I am beginning by doing quick and dirty tests in order to choose the lenses to test properly. I don't want to try a lens which is just bad in everyway (but do you guys want to see it anyway ?) I will be updating this first post with everything I'll be doing based on your remarks. Test procedure for the quick tests : Same camera settings, same exposure on the lenses, same grading, shot with my AF100 (AVCHD codec) in 1080p/24fps 28 mm lenses (at f/3.5) IMO : The Minolta looks sharp and contrasty, the makinon is not bad either but has a bit less contrast. Saying that the Super Varexon is soft would be an understatement. More to come (35,50,85 and 135 already shot) Thanks for the read

I am eager to see the full review As I have many lenses from super 16mm to full frame, it would be a great camera for it (plus super 16mm zooms are quite fast and super cheap !) I guess B4 lenses would be an option too (but the image circle is still a bit smaller than super16mm, would B4 lenses cover a sufficient amount of the LS300 properly ?) But I just bought an AF100 and 4k$ isn't an option right now :s I still have to rig my AF100 and buy an external monitor :s BTW, I just began on working on review for the lenses I own (a bunch minolta primes and some M42 lenses)

There's a cheaper solution. It is possible to adapt then using this very thin adapter (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Thin-Minolta-MD-Lens-to-Canon-EOS-serial-Camera-Adapter-without-glasses-MD-EOS-/111751120312) which makes your minolta lens compatible with the EOS system. At a flange distance of 44 mm (EOS) though instead of the 43.5 mm required (minolta MD/MC). I bought one two years ago) This usually means it doesn't focus to infinity but it is okay for focus up to 5-10 meters (depending on the focal distance and aperture of the lens). However, changing the adapter from one lens to another is a pain (tiny tiny screw of very poor quality). I would only recommend this if you have a very rare minolta lens that you absolutely want to use (85/1.2 bokeh master anyone ?)

Just searched for a Minolta 35/1.8 (I only have the 35/2.8 yet :s) and fond that the minoltas MD lenses are going cheaper and cheaper :O Minolta MD 50/1.4 : 60€, which is very very very reasonable IMO http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Objectif-Minolta-50mm-f-1-4-MD-ROKKOR-1-1-4-/252344490621?hash=item3ac0e75a7d:g:z9YAAOSwdU1W9lHL MInolta MD 28/2.8 (only have the 28/3.5 myself ....) : 42€, reasonable too http://www.ebay.fr/itm/28-mm-1-2-8-Minolta-MD-Rokkor-/172165384575?hash=item2815db497f:g:W3AAAOSwSzdXDPZj Minolta MD 135/2.8 : 55€, which is a great compact telephoto/portrait lens http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Minolta-MD-Rokkor-1-2-8-135-/131775607947?hash=item1eae70348b:g:4xEAAOSwr7ZW4Fwi There are also quite a lot of 35-70/3.5 which are known to be very good lenses for video around 40€ As a bonus, there is a cute 45/2 pancake which usually goes for 50€ in auction http://www.ebay.fr/itm/vintage-Minolta-MD-ROKKOR-45-mm-45mm-F-2-PANCAKE-LENS-/281999659321?hash=item41a87d5139:g:oLAAAOSwoudW8WdD Anyway, This jut motivated me to do a full review of my Minolta lenses. As it is quite difficult to find complete reviews on the web for minolta lenses with video. I'll set up a scene this weekend and compare all my lenses. Results to come :p

Might sound dumb, but as I understood it it goes like this. Recording is 25fps (for illustration purposes) So every of the 25 frames contains the sum of the five previous frames. for example, video frame one would have the sum of images 1 to 5 video frame 2 would have the sum of images 2 to 6 video frame 3 would have the sum of images 3 to 7 and so on.... That's how i would capture 25 fps with 1/5th second shutter speed

I am using a set of minolta MC/MD primes myself. The only problem with minoltas is that ultra wide primes are hard to get. But you can build a 28,35,50,85,135,200 mm set for very very cheap. Only problem is that the flange distance is not compatible with the Canon EF mount (everything mirrorless is great though, you can even buy speedboosters and other focal reducers ) On minolta you can get a very cheap set of 35/2.8 50/1.7 and 85/2 135/2.8 I got my 50/1.4 minolta for 20€ no one wants these lenses anymore, go hunt on garage sales For you criteria Flare control when pointed at light sources -> I would say "good" for the MD versions, and "it depends" for the MC versions of the lenses (older ones) Chromatic abberation control -> Very clean on this point ! Sharpness at wide open aperture -> I find minoltas to be very sharp indeed if the lens is in good condition (the only exception would be the 28/3.5 being quite wide) I can provide samples if you want

I have my zebras set at 95% on my AF100. But I do not have that many choices, it is 95 or 70%. As I do not have that much DR to play with, 95% is my only option :s

I know it might sound stupid, but is there any difference in quality (aliasing, moiré, sharpness) between a 100% and 90% coverage ? The digital processing on this thing looks like obscure magic to me (and I did work in Signal Processing and Vision Imaging !)

Yep, I owned it .... it was impossible to match footage from the 500d with my friends 550d (T2i for you americans). 720p with magic lantern was "sufficient" though.

Thank you for this evolving review Mattias Did you get to try a C mount Zoom (I think you had one) one this camera ? Curious of the capabilities to go from S35 to S16 on the same sensor, at the flick of a switch. I do not get why people keep pixel-peeping. Of course it's gonna fall appart if you grade it too hard ... it's an 8 bit codec. The picture looks goods and that's what matters.

Oooooooo indeed. I have to check reviews to evaluate the screen quality. Are those mini SDI connectors reliable enough though ? The thing is, it costs more than half the price of my camera. A rig should be still higher on my priority list ... Too many options, too few cash :s EDIT : Just saw that the BM Video Assist doesn't record interlaced (no internal 3:2 pulldown), which my camera outputs (AF100) .... I'll have to go with a Atomos Samurai Blade (which also seems to record DNxHD BTW) which has proper SDI inputs but no HDMI (not that I need it though ...) and is around the same price. Thank you Mattias for having pushed me on the right train of thoughts

Oh great, thanks didn't know that

Not really related, but do we have any cameras available shooting in Avid DNxHD ? As a windows user, it is way easier to work with DNxHD rather than Prores.

Can't wait for your review I hope it's not that good, as I just bought an AF100 :o

Based on previous comments, what I learn is that no one really wants to spend 3k$ on a light camera and make compromises. We can either go cheaper (1-2k for used equipment of very good quality) or spend a bit more and get the full package (JVC LS300 is a very reasonable choice indeed !) PS : Don't want to mess thing up, but how can ProRes 422 can be "better" than RedRaw ? FIles are a bit smaller but I'd even prefer to shoot AVCHD or H264 if I want small files of good enough quality.

May sound stupid, but I would not want any of them for this price. I'd rather have a used FS100 or AF100 (or equivalent) and spend the remaining cash on lenses, mics and lighting. I'm not in that 4k or High ISOs race anyway.